Stand Your Ground and Self Defense Laws

Right, can someone make sense of this? Surely we can all agree that at the very least Self Defense under SYG should be determined at some kind of hearing by a Judge not by the DA or cops.

Yes and no. Mostly yes.

I think there should be leeway in a case that appears to clearly be a valid case of SYG for the defender not to immediately go to jail. As in, there were witnesses that corroborate his story. He should still have to go before a judge before it's case closed.

Basically, if I'm assaulted in public and I defend myself, I shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer, thousands on a bail bond, and have my life turned upside down for weeks/months/a year before I can get in front of a judge who says, "case dismissed".

Right, can someone make sense of this? Surely we can all agree that at the very least Self Defense under SYG should be determined at some kind of hearing by a Judge not by the DA or cops.

Yes and no. Mostly yes.

I think there should be leeway in a case that appears to clearly be a valid case of SYG for the defender not to immediately go to jail. As in, there were witnesses that corroborate his story. He should still have to go before a judge before it's case closed.

Basically, if I'm assaulted in public and I defend myself, I shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer, thousands on a bail bond, and have my life turned upside down for weeks/months/a year before I can get in front of a judge who says, "case dismissed".

That's simply the risk you run when you decide to kill or injure someone, even in self defense. Because by your logic we simply open up the system for a lot of abuse when people claim self defense and all of their friends back up their story. Or you have cops or the DA who likes you more than the other guy.

What happened with Zimmerman is a perfect example, even if the local cops were confused about what the law actual meant, that confusion led to the belief that simply by claiming self defense he couldn't arrested or charged.

I'd say at the least any killing or serious injury with a claim of self defense, with a gun or not, should be an immediate arrest until at the very least the arraignment. That means you'd generally be in Jail 49-72 hours. At that initial hearing the Judge would determine if you receive bail or not. Then a DA can decide if based on the evidence, and all of the reports, they want to charge or not.

Because by your logic we simply open up the system for a lot of abuse when people claim self defense and all of their friends back up their story. Or you have cops or the DA who likes you more than the other guy.

and you think the extra "49-72 hours" the guilty guy spends in jail before the judge dismisses the case because of the same exact friends and DAs somehow avoids those problems?

Quote:

That's simply the risk you run when you decide to kill or injure someone, even in self defense

You don't always get to decide what it takes to defend yourself.

Quote:

That means you'd generally be in Jail 49-72 hours.

So you think an obviously innocent person should be in jail for 2-3 days!?!?

All to avoid the possibility that someone who appeared obviously innocent at first might skip town before their hearing?

Because by your logic we simply open up the system for a lot of abuse when people claim self defense and all of their friends back up their story. Or you have cops or the DA who likes you more than the other guy.

and you think the extra "49-72 hours" the guilty guy spends in jail before the judge dismisses the case because of the same exact friends and DAs somehow avoids those problems?

Arraignment only leads to a bail and a plead. I suspect few people are dismissed at that point. But the only way any Self Defense law makes sense is if it is determined by a judge or a jury. Now, maybe the judge is biased as well. But at least a lawyer has an opportunity to change venue.

But yes, if someone is killed or seriously injured there needs to be an immediate arrest simply to determine what happened. It also prevents someone from simply running.

I mentioned this in the Gun thread, but I think there is two interesting mindsets involved with these discussions. One side sees themself as a person exercising self defense. One other sees it as someone else. That radically changes one's view on these issues.

In one case, Pont sees himself punished by having to prove his act was a justifiable act of self defense. One the other, I think of people unjustly using that claim claim for murder.

Rather than assuming that you killed in self defense, assume that you were the one killed and the other guy is claiming self defense. Should he be let free without an arrest because his buddies back up his story? You are now dead and your family will never get any justice because someone at first glance thought it was "obvious" that it was self defense.

So you think an obviously innocent person should be in jail for 2-3 days!?!?

I suspect that you greatly overestimate what is "obviously innocent."

Since neither of us have facts, I would propose the idea that the cases of "obvious innocence" are rare. Most of the time the facts, even eye witness reports are muddy. What is "obvious" self defense in many cases is far from obvious.

Quote:

You don't always get to decide what it takes to defend yourself.

When using a Gun, or other obviously lethal object, you are generally making a conscious decision. Now, maybe someone throws a punch and they slip and hit their head and die.

So, to put this another way. Describe for me a workable policy that gives cops the authority to simply let someone who killed another and claims self defense walk away without even an arrest. And provide a protective mechanism that keeps anyone from claiming self defense and walking. Something being "obvious" is generally not a legal standard.

How is a guy who admittedly shot an unarmed person to death "obviously innocent?" If it were obvious that Martin started the fight that led to his death, none of this would be news.

I doubt that Pont would consider this a case of "obvious innocence" but I could be wrong. He seems to be suggesting that there is a special perfect set of circumstances were someone is so obviously innocent via self defense that no person could think otherwise. And that this circumstance is deserving of special consideration.

It reminds me of people who think there should be limited Death Penalty appeals in cases were it is "obvious" they are guilty.

Since neither of us have facts, I would propose the idea that the cases of "obvious innocence" are rare. Most of the time the facts, even eye witness reports are muddy. What is "obvious" self defense in many cases is far from obvious.

IDK, I did a quick search of "self defense shooting" on my local paper's web site, and got a LOT of stories where it seemed pretty obvious. Pretty much all of them were instances of home invasion situations, where not only was the person who was shot obviously was breaking in, but they were aware that the homeowner was there, and still advanced on them. I think that an intruder breaking into a home and advancing on the homeowner is an "obvious innocence" situation.

As far as outside the home goes, I think it gets much murkier. Of course if there are multiple independent witnesses of a shooting that can confirm the shooter's self-defense claim, then I think that ought to count. But anything else should receive a high degree of skepticism.

Just as much as I highly dislike the idea of a "they were just standing their ground, so stop investigating!" requirement, I dislike the idea of "someone shoots someone else, so they have to go to jail" requirement. I much prefer that we allow the police and prosecutors to do their jobs and make their own calls. Not allowing them to approach each situation individually, and forcing them to follow an unyielding rule seems stupid in either direction.

They have always been able to as part of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. The SYG law muddles this by forcing them to give undue deference to recitations of self defense, and then blocks civil lawsuits based on pro forma findings.

But, at the very least, a person who kills another should have to take a quick trip to the station to give a formal statement.

But, at the very least, a person who kills another should have to take a quick trip to the station to give a formal statement.

Agreed.

My knowledge of police procedures pretty much ends with what I've seen on CSI, but I believe that they already have the discretion to release a suspect after questioning, if they are cooperating and don't seem to be a flight risk. Presumably an "obvious" self-defender would generally fall into that category. Yes, it's going to jumble up your life for several hours, but not appreciably more than if you were the victim of a major property crime or other criminal situation that didn't end with somebody dead on the floor.

Again, if it were obvious that Martin started the fight that led to the shooting - and I'm including stalking as [edit] and Zimmerman's bloody head - then move if this would have been news. The facts are few, and they don't paint a clear picture, so "obviously" anything doesn't come into play.

Again, if it were obvious that Martin started the fight that led to the shooting - and I'm including stalking as [edit] and Zimmerman's bloody head - then move if this would have been news. The facts are few, and they don't paint a clear picture, so "obviously" anything doesn't come into play.

Again, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. The suggestion of "obvious innocence" was to a more general matter.

How is a guy who admittedly shot an unarmed person to death "obviously innocent?" If it were obvious that Martin started the fight that led to his death, none of this would be news.

I doubt that Pont would consider this a case of "obvious innocence" but I could be wrong. He seems to be suggesting that there is a special perfect set of circumstances were someone is so obviously innocent via self defense that no person could think otherwise. And that this circumstance is deserving of special consideration.

It reminds me of people who think there should be limited Death Penalty appeals in cases were it is "obvious" they are guilty.

How do you legally define what is Obvious and what isn't?

I've never defended Zimmerman. Quite the contrary. He had no evidence in his favor, other than his own word.

I reject the idea of zero tolerance, absolute rules, and clear lines. I know this isn't the easiest thread to voice this opinion, but I think mercy and discretion have a place in our justice system. I think it's a myth that they prevent corruption and favoritism.

"Obvious innocence" is obviously an unsuitable phrase for a written law. I think if multiple eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence overwhelmingly point to a valid self-defense situation and the defender is not a flight risk, he or she doesn't need to be jailed immediately and for days.

I oppose limited appeals for "obvious" death penalty cases for the same reason. We should ere on the side of liberty when we can.

Right, can someone make sense of this? Surely we can all agree that at the very least Self Defense under SYG should be determined at some kind of hearing by a Judge not by the DA or cops.

The problem with this thinking is that it's the DA that is going to be making the state's case at this sort of hearing. What do you think will happen when you force a DA who doesn't think the person involved is guilty is asked to go before the court.

DA: "Your honor, even the DA in this case doesn't believe person X did anything wrong."

Judge: "Dismissed."

There is litterally no point in wasting the court's time by making the DA state that in front of a judge when they can do the same thing by simply not filing any charges.

Hell, what sort of charge would that even look like. You are asking a DA to file charges against somebody they think is innocent. That's a recipe for wrongful prosecution. Not only that but you are opening up the state for all sorts of wrongful imprisonment charges.

"Well yes, nobody form the cops to the DA felt that this person was guilty but because of some stupid law we had to lock him up for several days until we could all have a hearing that stated that nobody felt he was guilty."

And yet, Zimmerman almost walked on a potential murder charge, due to lazy prosecution and this stupid law.

Despite plenty of assertions, it's not at all clear to me that the law had anything to do with it. Zimmerman was arrested and interrogated at the station, and the investigating detective recommended charges. It was the prosecutor who declined to proceed with the charges, and I'm not convinced that this prosecutor wouldn't have done the same exact thing pre-SYG.

Keep in mind that if one chooses to believe Zimmerman's account of events, that he had lost contact with Martin who then jumped him out of nowhere and then started slamming his head into the concrete, he'd have been perfectly justified in shooting even under Florida's old laws because no reasonable person would conclude that he could have retreated at that point.

Just as there are prosecutors who would use the armchair quarterbacking inherent to "duty to retreat" provisions of the old law to prosecute cases they shouldn't have, there are also prosecutors who are going to be inclined to look the other way when there's a dead black kid.

The law gives them additional cover to do so, both before and after the fact, when they can point to it and say that they had to.

Also, this is a simplification, since the law allows the raising of a SD claim before the state even makes its case to show the purposeful actions of the shooter, and without the prior history that Zimmerman had, this may have been enough to let him get away with it. The media attention on his prior history is what caused the reversal. It also disallows civil suits in cases where the SYG is found to apply, and even though a DA may be lazy or stupid, this should not preclude private causes of action.

I've already said before that after the his appearance on Real Time, I was convinced George Zimmerman was guilty because of how Robert Zimmerman presented himself and his brother.

That being said, three words: Bowling. For. Columbine.

It's trying to associate a loose series of connections and claiming cause and effect. When white kids listen to heavy metal they're more likely to go on shooting sprees because heavy metal makes them do it. If black kids listen to ganster rap, wear grills, and give the finger on twitter, yep, they're probably just as likely to shoot babies in the face. Cause. And. Effect.

Robert Zimmerman may have just put his brother in jail with that racist outburst. He basically just made the point that it isn't a reach that George Zimmerman was racially motivated that night. If you're an individual that can look at two individual news reports and then make that absurd connection in your mind, you're a racist.

You'd be surprised. Voir dire always manages to turn up people living under rocks. Of course your jury is now made up of people who live under rocks, but at least they haven't heard of your case and made up their minds.

The fact that Zimmerman's brother has presented himself as a complete and total racist certainly makes George's defense of "I can't be racist, I'm hispanic!!!!" harder to sell.

That is a bizarre claim to begin with, and one the law doesn't recognize. The law is perfectly happy to slap anybody with a hate crime if the crime was racially motivated.

I actually don't recall that specific claim. Zimmerman has done lots of stupid shit, but I don't recall that on the list.

You must not have watched his lawyers stressing repeatedly that he wasn't white as the news originally called him he's "hispanic". They also trotted out the "some of my best friends are black..." as well.

They also trotted out the "some of my best friends are black..." as well.

Please tell me that's not true. I literally, laughed. Might as well go full Trump I guess.

To be fair, once someone has accused you of racism, there really aren't very many good ways to counter such an accusation. I understand "some of my best friends are black" has become a bit of a cliche, but really, what can one say that would change anyone's mind?

To be fair, once someone has accused you of racism, there really aren't very many good ways to counter such an accusation. I understand "some of my best friends are black" has become a bit of a cliche, but really, what can one say that would change anyone's mind?

Well, I'd personally accept examples where you lost face by standing up publicly to bigoted statements or donating and participating in some anti-racist cause, but in this case (comparing Martin to an infant-killer), there's no real coming back from that.

To be fair, once someone has accused you of racism, there really aren't very many good ways to counter such an accusation. I understand "some of my best friends are black" has become a bit of a cliche, but really, what can one say that would change anyone's mind?

Well, I'd personally accept examples where you lost face by standing up publicly to bigoted statements or donating and participating in some anti-racist cause, but in this case (comparing Martin to an infant-killer), there's no real coming back from that.

Because everyone has proof of such things?I certainly don't have video of every moment of my life - all I can do is refer people to those who know me personally to verify my prejudices.Are you implying that everyone who does not spend a lot of time making sure there is public record of them participating in some sort of racial-equality protests must therefore presumed to be a racist, or at least have no means of defending themselves from charges of racism?

I put the burden of proof on those making the accusation - sadly, in the court of public opinion, unsupported allegations are presumed to be true, and the burden of producing unassailable evidence to the contrary is upon the accused.

In this case, having a brother who can have a poor public persona, I pity those who have to suffer for the ignorant ranting of a tactless brother.

Woah, they were just supposed to be examples. I actually didn't pick the volunteering and donating bit because they'd leave a verifiable trail, just examples of mitigating evidence I'd accept from verbal enumeration.

Quote:

I put the burden of proof on those making the accusation - sadly, in the court of public opinion, unsupported allegations are presumed to be true, and the burden of producing unassailable evidence to the contrary is upon the accused.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to if you're responding to what I said. I didn't say that Zimmerman is guilty because his brother's a fuckwit, just that his brother is racist and having one friend of every color isn't going to erase that. If you want to dispute that his brother is racist, cool beans, I'm actually not going to argue the point because I think we can both agree it'd be unproductive.

Or the person who gets shot.. you know.. the "thug" kid who wound up dead on the sidewalk.

He had better have an iron clad SD case.

heh, I originally read that as implying that Martin needed to have an iron clad SD case.

Yes, Martin needs an iron clad self-defense case for having brutally attacked a lost guy who was so befuddled he needed to get out of his car to search for a street sign to figure out where he was in his own tiny neighborhood (with all of what, 2 streets? mental disabilities are so unfortunate). He should be put on trial for such an unwarranted assault, and suffer the indignity of going through the media circus that is our criminal justice system before being allowed to 'pay his debt to society' and live out the rest of his life with that unfortunate episode in his record.